[tied] Re: Albanian (3)

Hello Piotr,

" (1) All Latin loans are affected."

A necessary argument BUT not a sufficient one.

if Start_Moment(s->sh) < Moment_of(First_Latin_Loan)

or

if Moment_of(First_Latin_Loans) < Start_Moment(s->sh)

All Latin loans will be affected too...

So we don't need at ALL to suppose that :
Moment_of (Last_latin_Loan) < Start_Moment(s->sh)

" (2) Some Slavic loans are affected but most aren't. "

2.a Please write some examples here of affected Slavic Loans.

2.b Even if so, this only indicate something about the end moment
of the s->sh

End_Moment(s->sh) > Moment_of(First_Slavic_Loan)

but don't tell us Anything about Start_moment(s->sh)

" Slavic show Modern Albanian /s/ for Slavic *c^, which is sufficient
proof that the two processes (the retraction of sibilants and the
simplification of "shibilant" affricates) overlapped chronologically"

a. Very interesting point, please put some examples here.

b. Even if so, once again this ONLY indicate us something
regarding the end moment of s->sh:

Start_Moment(c^ -> s) < End_Moment(s->sh) < End_Moment(c^ -> s)

and nothing related to the Start_moment(s->sh)


So you still not proof your affirmation.

My analysis show some reasonable arguments that s->sh were with
high probability ACTIVE DURING the Latin Loans...

Best regards,
marius

P.S. :
"worst case scenario" is not something "worst" for somebody.
It's just to say that when we make an assumption, and we don't
know the real values of some parameters, we move these values to
the "worst limits for our assumption" in order to check it.


--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski
<piotr.gasiorowski@...> wrote:

> 28-01-04 23:29, alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> > Hello Piotr,
> > You wrote :
> > " After the main wave of Balkan Latin loans in Albanian but
> > before the main wave of borrowings from Slavic the
> > fricatives *s and *z became retracted, yielding postalveolar *s^

and

> > *z^. "
> > This is only an afirmation. You have to sustain it with
> > arguments.
> > My analysis that I post today , shows that in a worst case
> > scenario, the activation of s -> s^ started about 200AD and was

fully

> > spreading acrros all albanian around 600 AD. But once again it is

a

> > worst case scenario. The activatation could be well in place at

200

> > AD, 300 AD or at 400AD so during and not after the main wave of
> > Balkan Latin loans.
>
> OK. I don't know what's "worst" for you and why. The hard facts are

as

> follows:
>
> (1) All Latin loans are affected.
> (2) Some Slavic loans are affected but most aren't.
>
> The most parsimonious interpretation of these facts is this: the

change

> occurred at a time when the Latin lexical stratum had already been
> absorbed, and was still operative when the Slavic loans began to

trickle

> in. Of course you can invent any number of more complicated

solutions,

> but what for?
>
> At the time when *s was the only strident fricative in the
> (Proto-)Albanian sound system, it may have had retracted allophones
> (like, e.g. Castilian or Modern Greek /s/), but such pronunciations

were

> phonologically _irrelevant_ until *[s^] began to contrast with *

[s], and

> there was no such contrast in Roman-time Albanian.
>
> The change I desribed was part of a shift: the slots vacated by *s

and

> *z were filled as *c^ and *3^ changed into *s and *z. It was only

then

> that a new system of fricatives emerged. Some of the oldest loans

from

> Slavic show Modern Albanian /s/ for Slavic *c^, which is sufficient
> proof that the two processes (the retraction of sibilants and the
> simplification of "shibilant" affricates) overlapped

chronologically.

>
> Piotr